The RewriteRule is just an example of an option with two parameters. And normally there's indenting, but slashdot is being a bitch.
If you have paths with spaces in them, you end up putting those in quotes, and a few other random things. But usually you don't need them, and you don't use = at all.
No, they do not. Name a single Unix server program that comes with a GUI configuration tool of its own. Let's see...Samba. And that's it.
However, something that comes with most Linux distributions, Webmin, manages Apache just fine, so you don't have to 'download' anything.
Which is why I asked if you were brain damaged. While Apache may not provide a GUI config tool, either does IIS6. They both just use the OS's configuration tool, Webmin and the MMC respectively.
As an added bonus, of course, you can access Webmin from any sort of computer, as it's posing as a web server. Whereas MMC can do remote access, but only from other Windows machines.
Sadly, if you're running Apache on Windows, support for Webmin on Windows is still very beta. (Webmin is just Perl.) Here it is if you want to risk it.
Apache on Windows has always been a bit of a joke anyway, though. If you run Apache in its intended enviroment, a Unix or Unix-like system, Webmin works fine. If you run it on a Linux system, Webmin is usually already installed.
Of course, in your hypothetical world where the Apache devs also decided to write a UI, it would be for X, and thus difficult to run on Windows in the first place.
Loading (and unloading) modules is one of the few things you can't do with HUP, IIRC.
Yes, it's in the config file, but the module reading config code is fairly magic. It has to be, as modules are usually required to read the config file anyway.
You don't have to restart to add hosts. You merely send the server a HUP and it reload its config. It might be something like '/etc/init.d/httpd reload', or you may need to find the apachectl program.
However, with vhost_alias, you can trivially add virtual hosts without doing anything except making directories.
How many people here run a production webserver that it's important it's not down at any particular time? (I don't mean can't ever be down, I just mean it's bad if it is down.) Show of hands.
Now, how many times have you altered the loaded modules in Apache in the last year? (Setting up a new install doesn't count.)
Me. And, I think...four times. Two, one off and one on, screwing with mod_dav, one to turn on mod_info, and one for mod_suexec. Maybe a few more I can't recall.
With a graceful restart, the webserver doesn't respond to new requests for maybe half a second, and all the old connections keep working. (Thus, with keep-alive, every web page finishes downloading.) It is simply not important enough to screw around with loading modules on the fly to skip that half a second.
Why? Well, for one thing, how could you configure them? Modules need to be loaded when parsing the config file. (A fun Catch-22, considering that's where the module list is, but they seem to have that working.)
Now, yes, loadable modules would be fun for people who screw around with apache, instead of run it seriously, but those people are exactly the people who don't need seven 9s of uptime, or even three 9s.
However, that sort of logic is unrelated to what code gets written. The question is: Is any Apache dev willing to spend days writing code to keep himself from a half second uptime? I rather doubt it.
I urge everyone to read that so they know what MAKING UP CRAP looks like.
One of those 'issues' is the fact that some terminal emulators are vulnerable to escape sequences, and Apache 2 may allow those to end up in log files, according to them..
Of course, there's no evidence that Apache does, in fact, log escape sequences. Certainly I've never seen them.
Another one: If you are using wildcard DNS records, then you can access apache using 'javascript' hostnames. If said website then displays 'the name you are accessing me as' on the script, the Javascript will execute. So someone gives you a link with a javascript hostname, and you click on it, there's a crosssite scripting vulernability.
Of course, if they give you a link that says FUCKYOU.sitename.dom, you'll get a big FUCKYOU when you get there, too. I don't know what kind of moron would design a site like that, but calling it an 'apache' problem is stretching the issue. If you access a website with a gibberish name, and the website requests the name it was accessed as, um, it will get gibberish. A script printing gibberish given to it is stupid.
In fact, there's no such damn thing as a cross-site scripting issue on a web server. Those happen in web browsers or on web pages or both combined. This is a web page one. (Actually, DNS implimentations share some blame. If I ask for the IP of bl@ah:as(+f{46}#90=42.something.dom, the OS shouldn't try to resolve it, and, if it does, the DNS server that has a *.something.dom record shouldn't blithely pretend that was a valid request and give the wildcard IP out.)
Quite a few of them are about things that do no come with Apache, or are not enabled in normal operation, like mod_disk_cache or mod_proxy. One is a test script that you have to manually put in place! (This is one they claim is 'unpatched', like you can't just move the damn test script back out of there.) One is for Apache on cygwin, and one is for Apache on Win 9x. One is if you start requiring certain cyphers in SSL in certain virtual hosts, it is possible to get around that requirement. (Does anyone do that? Why?) Another is for client certificates in SSL.
There are a few DoSs. Some local, requiring access to the apache config, or at least.htaccess. A few remote, and those are actual problems.
It's hard to tell, but there appear to be about four of these remote DoSs.
Or you could just do a 'graceful' restart. Leaving all open connections open, but closing the listening port and then restarting the server.
Yes, it's technically down for like a quarter second, but why I do suspect that IIS's non-response time on 'without restarting the web server' will be larger?
I thought everyone did this? Are there still people putting every virtual host in the same file? That's complete insanity.
I was sitting here wondering what people were talking about with editing their httpd.conf and how it was 40000 lines.
Lines in httpd.conf on my server: 437
Lines in other included files: 1314
And this is with some magical include tricks to reduce. For example...using auth? Is it mysql auth, where it's two dozen lines long? Are you using that same auth, with different users/passwords from the same database, on a dozen site?
Well, make a Directory block for each directory, and in each one, put:
Include conf/mysql_auth.conf
require user username
In auth.conf, put Satisfy all and AuthType Basic and AuthMySQLHost whatever and all that crap.
This is good for security, especially if your virtual host config files want to be world readable so they are easily viewed with custom scripts. (Like scripts to automatically set up web log parsing on new hosts.) You can leave them as such, yet keep your mysql password secure.
And this tip is good for other things. Do you have a complicated php program, like phpBB or Mambo, where you want to set five PHP settings, a few RewriteEngine commands, a custom 404 page, etc etc? Make a conf/phpbb.conf, and include it in each virtual host you run that on.
I leave you with this script I wrote, in a public domain, in case you were wondering what I meant by 'scripts'.
IPS=`/sbin/ifconfig |grep "inet addr"|cut -b21-34|cut -d' ' -f1|uniq`
for i in $IPS
{
echo "---"$i
grep -l $i/etc/httpd/domains/*|cut -d'/' -f5
}
You'll need to fix the path, and it assumes you'll get useful information from the config filename. (Although that first line is worth looking at alone!)
It isn't psuedo XML at all. That would be a neat trick, considering how far it predates XML.
It's merely a nested config file. Each option is set with a single line that has the option name and then the setting(s) to give that.
Many of these options can be put inside a 'restrictor'. You can restrict options to files, directories, URL paths (Locations), and virtual hosts. These restrictors look vaguely like XML, but lots of things look vaguely like XML.
It's easy to manage hosts if you do it outside of httpd.conf.
Seperate each host into its own file with the name of the file being the name of the virtual host plus.conf. Put them all in a directory, and then just Include path/*.conf
If you want to remove one, mv hostname.conf hostname.save.
And it's trivial to make an 'add a host' batch file that way, too, using a template.
I don't know what you mean by 'host headers', however. You can add headers in virtual servers, and there's a module that sends files 'as-is', with them including their own headers and the web server not making any up. (Like cgi scripts, but not executed.)
And I think there's a module that will do something like read index.html.headers and put that in the headers when you request index.html, but I can't remember what it is called.
Oh, wait, it's not free, it's merely included in the price of something else.
b) Easily modifiable if you figure out something else you want it to do
- IIS isnt that hard to figure out.. I figured it out as fast as Apache. Because of the strong/open community around Microsoft products, them being diffult to use is easily overcome
You missed the 'modifiable' part of that, didn't you? Apache has source. If worse comes to worse, you find a module that's close to what you want, and hack it. (I think this is one of the things MS is trying to change here.)
c) More Stable
- If you leave a Windows box running IIS alone in the corner of your office (Like I have), you will rarly touch it, I usually install updates once every few months.
So...you're owned every month, then? Or is the corner of your office not connected to the internet?
Or, wait? Is your webserver behind a Linux proxy/firewall? Admit it, it is, isn't it?
d) Running on an OS that's Free'er than yours?
- 100 bucks is not really something to complain about. If that overhead is hurting your business you have larger problems.
You can't even get XP Home for 100 bucks. And Home does not have IIS.
A 'legit according to MS' license for XP Pro is $269.00. See here. That's sans CD, incidentally.
Yes, you can get it for cheaper, but those are often counterfeit or gray market OEM version. (While the illegality of selling those is probably dubious under the Doctrine of First Sale, Microsoft does not get to use gray market licenses that it is trying to stop to demonstrate about how low its prices are.)
Windows Server 2003 might be cheaper, but I can't locate it. However, it's not 100 dollars.
e) Kicking your tail
- ?
I think that is self-explanitory. Apache owns the web server market with 70% of the entire thing, and MS limps in at 20%, with the other 10% being other Unix servers. I think 70% vs. 20% is 'kicking tail'.
f) Preferred by Developers
- Considering the.NET Framework is the most propular develpment platform today, I am sure this could be argued.
Oh, I understand. You'll living in that parallel universe where people care about.NET. Um, no. Depending on want you mean by that, the 'most popular development enviroment' is probably C, like it's been for the past 30 years. If you mean 'desktop programs', I suspect C++ might slightly win over C, with Java in there somewhere.
Even if you're saying 'Windows application development enviroment',.NET doesn't win, and I don't know what the hell that would have to do with web server.
With web development, almost all is Perl and PHP. ASP comes in a distance third, and ASP.NET isn't even making a dent.
But wait!.NET is by Microsoft, and it's new. We should all immedaitely start using it so we can be obsoleted in four years.
VB anyone? ASP? J++? Just exactly how many programming languages has MS left to rot?
Some of us like to code in languages that have open source versions, or at least are multiple vender-supported standards, so we don't get tossed out of the Microsoft truck when it decides to randomly swerve in a new direction.
This is because the human brain is programmed with filters so we don't go worrying about absurd things all the time.
For example, when we step out of bed in the morning, we do not consider we may have been magically teleported into 'walking on the ceiling' land, and are about to fall eight feet to the ceiling.
Or when when we sit down in front of the TV, we do not consider that may not be our TV at all, but a giant maneating ferret posing as our TV waiting for us to sit down.
Or when we talk about possible novels made in the future, we do not consider that some people may have decided to make a novel out of the Super Mario Brother's movie.
Prices for recycled aluminum cans are about.35 per pound.
I think that right there proved my entire point.
The average weight of an aluminum can is half a ounce. That means 32-33 of them are in a pound. Let's say a person can only carry, oh, 200 cans at once, as they are rather unweildy.
That's 4 pounds. Or one dollar and forty cents worth of cans.
Let's assume that each person in the US lives within walking distance of an aluminum recycling plant, where they pay 35 cents at the door per pound.
How close would this plant have to be to make recycling the cans pay no less than minimum wage? A round trip, at minimum wage, of $1.40 is about 16minutes, or 8 minutes each way.
At reasonable walking speed, that's about 3/4th a mile.
Now, of course, they could crush the cans, and maybe carry twice as much, the weight is trivial. Sadly, crushing 400 cans, even if you can do one a second, would take six and half minutes, so you'd only slightly come out ahead. If it takes any longer than one second, you'll probably come out behind.
Now, you could obviously drive, and with gas prices at about 10 cents a mile in any reasonable car, means you could go 13 miles roundtrip...assuming you can do it instantly. But let's assume 60 mph, and a wasted minute getting in your car and dropping the stuff offand coming home, you could get three miles, spending three minutes, each way, and come out ahead.
Ah, but you could put more in your car. Well, let's just look at it this way:
You get paid, in scrap price, one cent per can. That is approx. 11 seconds at minimum wage. Gasoline is approx. 1 cents per tenth of a mile. If you average more time or more mileage per can, recycling cans is not efficient.
No, seriously,.35 cents a pound is a *horrible* price for metal you collect in half ounce intervals. Economically it makes no sense.P.
It does, however, make sense for the homeless, but that is only because they do not work for minimum wage.
Yes, I know the rest of the can can be recycled. I don't actually have any problem with programs recycling aluminum, that's one of the things that could actually make sense, as opposed to glass, paper, or plastic, one of which is as common as dirt, one of which grows on trees, and one of which usually uses more oil than it saves.
However, it still does not make enough to pay for itself. In various places, the recycling has been propped up with government subsidies or even just the law. If it was cost efficient, aluminum manufacturers would have deposits on cans everywhere. They'd be trying their best to get new cans.
Here's a hint: If recycling involves the city picking up cans for free and turning them over for no money, than it is not cost efficient to recycle. Cities do not have to operate transport services for things that make money.
I don't worry too much. I figure if we run out of aluminum, we'll start mining landfills. Or we could just put taxes on using aluminum the first time.
As for recycling glass, worrying about it is one of the silliest things ever. We could direct the entire economy of the country to digging landfills and making glass solely to throw in there, and we could keep doing that for millennia. We will not run out of dirt to make into glass, and we will not run out of landfill space, despite what people seem to think.
And the best judge of what costs what are the people who have to pay it. Seriously. If it's energy efficient to recycle something, than it should cost less. (If it doesn't, we need to fix that.) If it costs less, companies should be leaping after it.
And, yes, the things we need to be caring about are the toxic things people throw away that can be recycled or referbished. Unlike entirely safe things to put in landfills, those cannot either be efficient to be recycle or ignored. We need to recycle those anyway.
But let's spend all our time and money recycling paper. I'm sure that's incredibly useful.
Anyone can pick anyone else and say 'I kill myself to rid us of that person' and commit suicide. Only one person can do this to any specific person a day, to keep tempers down.
A tally is kept that only that person, and a dedicated government branch, has access to. (Although, of course, if people publically announce they're killing themselves for that reason, others will know.)
When the tally reached 100 people, they are killed. A man shows up with a gun and vial, and you drink the vial or you're shot.
The theory: If 100 people are willing to die to rid the world of you, (And with no assurance, at the start, that others will follow their lead.) you deserve to be removed from the world.
Instead of fixing it at 100, you might want to make it 'one millionth of the adult population' or something. Which I think is like 175 right now in the US.
It's also possible the number should be closer to 1000 than 100, I dunno. Probably want to start too high, and then lower it if it's not working.
Ah, okay. I though you were one of those people who seem to be idolizing Miller, when it appears what she did was take classifed information from the very top of the current administration that Valeria Plame was a NOC (A CIA agent that pretends to work for a fake company.) in an attempt to discredit Plame's husband and his trip to Niger.
See, he had discovered there was no sign of Iraq attempting to purchase Uranium, and that was an important part of the lies about WMDs. So they decided to discredit him, and decided they would commit treason to do so, by suggesting his wife, (who incidentally happened to be a CIA agent, but don't tell anyone), suggested him for the position.
This is despite the fact she didn't in fact do that, and the idea is absurd...no one wants to go to Niger, it wasn't a damn vacation. He had experience in Niger, he knew the government over there, and he didn't even get paid for the two weeks of research he did over there.
That is not what protecting your sources is about, helping the government destroy people by revealing classified information. (Which, incidentally, got some people working with the CIA killed.)
Miller should have, when she realized what was going on, revealed her lying and treasonous sources. Sadly, she has not, as she apparently has no integrity. So everyone in the current administration can feel free to give reporters classified information to suggest any bogus facts they want, apparently.
What's even funnier is that she didn't even write a damn article. She just spread this information to other reporters.
As for where I draw the line about revealing sources? I don't know, exactly, but I know Miller is way past it.
The press must not let itself be used like this if it wants to retain any priviledges at all, and members of the press who weren't in Bush's pocket wouldn't be acting like this. Leaking classified information is one thing when you're some clerk in the CIA who disagrees with the administration and think the American people should know something, it's another when you're the administration itself and using it, in lies, to discredit people who disagree with the administration.
Sadly, I'm worried that this could result in people being required to reveal who gave them any classified information. We had a very famous case about 30 years ago called 'The Pentagon Papers', when a classified report about how bad the Vietnam war was going, and it was half the reason we left it.
The theory is that glass can be melted at lower temperature, saving energy.
In actual fact, a lot of the recycled glass goes the same process as new glass.
In addition, talking saving a certain amount of energy is crazy when the energy required to get the glass isn't factored in. (This is a problem with most recycling.)
If recycling saved energy, companies would be paying for stuff to recycle. You can use this rule to figure out what is worthwhile to recycle:
Pop tabs.
Yup, that's about it. The tabs on soda cans are worth recycling.
Complaining about semantics in a reply to a post that delibrately plays semantic games is a bit goofy.
And while 'up' and 'down' may be used to mean 'more' or 'less' points, I assert that 'moving vertically' is not automatically correct by analogy. It might make sense when you are actually looking at a graph over time, but as far as I know there's no graph of the moderation of slashdot posts, and it doesn't really make sense, because posts are not compared to each other, and only the current rating is revelant.
Otherwise, you just talk about the values 'changing' or 'moving'. Not moving vertically.
FEMA has no authority to override local government in the Astrodome, because the Astrodome is not, in fact, in a Federal disaster area. There is no martial law.
Checking google, it looks like Harris County owns the Astrodome. While they may have given permission to house people in it, they can put a damn legal radio station inside it if they so choose.
No, it would be shameful for someone in the USA to be unable to express such a position.
Talk about a strawman. No one said anyone shouldn't be able to express an opinion, just that it was shameful for them to do so. Exactly like you did, BTW.
And with public airwaves does come public responsibilities, that's why they have a damn license from the FCC. If they broadcast irresponsible stuff, they can be delicensed and shut down. Just like any other station in that area.
You moron. What, exactly, is the difference, between operating a CD radio station and an FM radio station?
There's only two:
For FM, you need a license. Which they have.
For CB, you need more expensive equipment to receive it.
I won't even touch the 'am' thing, where the only difference is that for a low-power AM station you don't need a licence, because, like I said, they have a license.
Slashdot Mirror
They obviously got someone else to use Google Earth for them.
You don't use quotes or equals.
It looks like this:
<VirtualHost 10.0.0.1:80> /var/www/blah/$1.jpg
Servername domain.dom
RewriteRule ^/blah([a-zA-Z0-9]*).gif$
</VirtualHost>
The RewriteRule is just an example of an option with two parameters. And normally there's indenting, but slashdot is being a bitch.
If you have paths with spaces in them, you end up putting those in quotes, and a few other random things. But usually you don't need them, and you don't use = at all.
However, something that comes with most Linux distributions, Webmin, manages Apache just fine, so you don't have to 'download' anything.
Which is why I asked if you were brain damaged. While Apache may not provide a GUI config tool, either does IIS6. They both just use the OS's configuration tool, Webmin and the MMC respectively.
As an added bonus, of course, you can access Webmin from any sort of computer, as it's posing as a web server. Whereas MMC can do remote access, but only from other Windows machines.
Sadly, if you're running Apache on Windows, support for Webmin on Windows is still very beta. (Webmin is just Perl.) Here it is if you want to risk it.
Apache on Windows has always been a bit of a joke anyway, though. If you run Apache in its intended enviroment, a Unix or Unix-like system, Webmin works fine. If you run it on a Linux system, Webmin is usually already installed.
Of course, in your hypothetical world where the Apache devs also decided to write a UI, it would be for X, and thus difficult to run on Windows in the first place.
Yes, it's in the config file, but the module reading config code is fairly magic. It has to be, as modules are usually required to read the config file anyway.
Are you brain damaged in some way, or have you just not looked?
However, with vhost_alias, you can trivially add virtual hosts without doing anything except making directories.
Useful? No.
How many people here run a production webserver that it's important it's not down at any particular time? (I don't mean can't ever be down, I just mean it's bad if it is down.) Show of hands.
Now, how many times have you altered the loaded modules in Apache in the last year? (Setting up a new install doesn't count.)
Me. And, I think...four times. Two, one off and one on, screwing with mod_dav, one to turn on mod_info, and one for mod_suexec. Maybe a few more I can't recall.
With a graceful restart, the webserver doesn't respond to new requests for maybe half a second, and all the old connections keep working. (Thus, with keep-alive, every web page finishes downloading.) It is simply not important enough to screw around with loading modules on the fly to skip that half a second.
Why? Well, for one thing, how could you configure them? Modules need to be loaded when parsing the config file. (A fun Catch-22, considering that's where the module list is, but they seem to have that working.)
Now, yes, loadable modules would be fun for people who screw around with apache, instead of run it seriously, but those people are exactly the people who don't need seven 9s of uptime, or even three 9s.
However, that sort of logic is unrelated to what code gets written. The question is: Is any Apache dev willing to spend days writing code to keep himself from a half second uptime? I rather doubt it.
One of those 'issues' is the fact that some terminal emulators are vulnerable to escape sequences, and Apache 2 may allow those to end up in log files, according to them..
Of course, there's no evidence that Apache does, in fact, log escape sequences. Certainly I've never seen them.
Another one: If you are using wildcard DNS records, then you can access apache using 'javascript' hostnames. If said website then displays 'the name you are accessing me as' on the script, the Javascript will execute. So someone gives you a link with a javascript hostname, and you click on it, there's a crosssite scripting vulernability.
Of course, if they give you a link that says FUCKYOU.sitename.dom, you'll get a big FUCKYOU when you get there, too. I don't know what kind of moron would design a site like that, but calling it an 'apache' problem is stretching the issue. If you access a website with a gibberish name, and the website requests the name it was accessed as, um, it will get gibberish. A script printing gibberish given to it is stupid.
In fact, there's no such damn thing as a cross-site scripting issue on a web server. Those happen in web browsers or on web pages or both combined. This is a web page one. (Actually, DNS implimentations share some blame. If I ask for the IP of bl@ah:as(+f{46}#90=42.something.dom, the OS shouldn't try to resolve it, and, if it does, the DNS server that has a *.something.dom record shouldn't blithely pretend that was a valid request and give the wildcard IP out.)
Quite a few of them are about things that do no come with Apache, or are not enabled in normal operation, like mod_disk_cache or mod_proxy. One is a test script that you have to manually put in place! (This is one they claim is 'unpatched', like you can't just move the damn test script back out of there.) One is for Apache on cygwin, and one is for Apache on Win 9x. One is if you start requiring certain cyphers in SSL in certain virtual hosts, it is possible to get around that requirement. (Does anyone do that? Why?) Another is for client certificates in SSL.
There are a few DoSs. Some local, requiring access to the apache config, or at least .htaccess. A few remote, and those are actual problems.
It's hard to tell, but there appear to be about four of these remote DoSs.
And one of the IIS problems is a remote DoS.
Yes, it's technically down for like a quarter second, but why I do suspect that IIS's non-response time on 'without restarting the web server' will be larger?
I was sitting here wondering what people were talking about with editing their httpd.conf and how it was 40000 lines.
Lines in httpd.conf on my server: 437
Lines in other included files: 1314
And this is with some magical include tricks to reduce. For example...using auth? Is it mysql auth, where it's two dozen lines long? Are you using that same auth, with different users/passwords from the same database, on a dozen site?
Well, make a Directory block for each directory, and in each one, put:
Include conf/mysql_auth.conf
require user username
In auth.conf, put Satisfy all and AuthType Basic and AuthMySQLHost whatever and all that crap.
This is good for security, especially if your virtual host config files want to be world readable so they are easily viewed with custom scripts. (Like scripts to automatically set up web log parsing on new hosts.) You can leave them as such, yet keep your mysql password secure.
And this tip is good for other things. Do you have a complicated php program, like phpBB or Mambo, where you want to set five PHP settings, a few RewriteEngine commands, a custom 404 page, etc etc? Make a conf/phpbb.conf, and include it in each virtual host you run that on.
I leave you with this script I wrote, in a public domain, in case you were wondering what I meant by 'scripts'.
IPS=`/sbin/ifconfig |grep "inet addr"|cut -b21-34|cut -d' ' -f1|uniq` /etc/httpd/domains/*|cut -d'/' -f5
for i in $IPS
{
echo "---"$i
grep -l $i
}
You'll need to fix the path, and it assumes you'll get useful information from the config filename. (Although that first line is worth looking at alone!)
It's merely a nested config file. Each option is set with a single line that has the option name and then the setting(s) to give that.
Many of these options can be put inside a 'restrictor'. You can restrict options to files, directories, URL paths (Locations), and virtual hosts. These restrictors look vaguely like XML, but lots of things look vaguely like XML.
Seperate each host into its own file with the name of the file being the name of the virtual host plus .conf. Put them all in a directory, and then just Include path/*.conf
If you want to remove one, mv hostname.conf hostname.save.
And it's trivial to make an 'add a host' batch file that way, too, using a template.
I don't know what you mean by 'host headers', however. You can add headers in virtual servers, and there's a module that sends files 'as-is', with them including their own headers and the web server not making any up. (Like cgi scripts, but not executed.)
And I think there's a module that will do something like read index.html.headers and put that in the headers when you request index.html, but I can't remember what it is called.
- IIS is also free.
IIS is free? Holy shit!
Where's the download for XP Home, then?
Oh, wait, it's not free, it's merely included in the price of something else.
b) Easily modifiable if you figure out something else you want it to do
- IIS isnt that hard to figure out.. I figured it out as fast as Apache. Because of the strong/open community around Microsoft products, them being diffult to use is easily overcome
You missed the 'modifiable' part of that, didn't you? Apache has source. If worse comes to worse, you find a module that's close to what you want, and hack it. (I think this is one of the things MS is trying to change here.)
c) More Stable
- If you leave a Windows box running IIS alone in the corner of your office (Like I have), you will rarly touch it, I usually install updates once every few months.
So...you're owned every month, then? Or is the corner of your office not connected to the internet?
Or, wait? Is your webserver behind a Linux proxy/firewall? Admit it, it is, isn't it?
d) Running on an OS that's Free'er than yours?
- 100 bucks is not really something to complain about. If that overhead is hurting your business you have larger problems.
You can't even get XP Home for 100 bucks. And Home does not have IIS.
A 'legit according to MS' license for XP Pro is $269.00. See here. That's sans CD, incidentally.
Yes, you can get it for cheaper, but those are often counterfeit or gray market OEM version. (While the illegality of selling those is probably dubious under the Doctrine of First Sale, Microsoft does not get to use gray market licenses that it is trying to stop to demonstrate about how low its prices are.)
Windows Server 2003 might be cheaper, but I can't locate it. However, it's not 100 dollars.
e) Kicking your tail
- ?
I think that is self-explanitory. Apache owns the web server market with 70% of the entire thing, and MS limps in at 20%, with the other 10% being other Unix servers. I think 70% vs. 20% is 'kicking tail'.
f) Preferred by Developers .NET Framework is the most propular develpment platform today, I am sure this could be argued.
- Considering the
Oh, I understand. You'll living in that parallel universe where people care about .NET. Um, no. Depending on want you mean by that, the 'most popular development enviroment' is probably C, like it's been for the past 30 years. If you mean 'desktop programs', I suspect C++ might slightly win over C, with Java in there somewhere.
Even if you're saying 'Windows application development enviroment', .NET doesn't win, and I don't know what the hell that would have to do with web server.
With web development, almost all is Perl and PHP. ASP comes in a distance third, and ASP.NET isn't even making a dent.
But wait! .NET is by Microsoft, and it's new. We should all immedaitely start using it so we can be obsoleted in four years.
VB anyone? ASP? J++? Just exactly how many programming languages has MS left to rot?
Some of us like to code in languages that have open source versions, or at least are multiple vender-supported standards, so we don't get tossed out of the Microsoft truck when it decides to randomly swerve in a new direction.
What exactly gives you the idea I'm 'little'?
For example, when we step out of bed in the morning, we do not consider we may have been magically teleported into 'walking on the ceiling' land, and are about to fall eight feet to the ceiling.
Or when when we sit down in front of the TV, we do not consider that may not be our TV at all, but a giant maneating ferret posing as our TV waiting for us to sit down.
Or when we talk about possible novels made in the future, we do not consider that some people may have decided to make a novel out of the Super Mario Brother's movie.
I think that right there proved my entire point.
The average weight of an aluminum can is half a ounce. That means 32-33 of them are in a pound. Let's say a person can only carry, oh, 200 cans at once, as they are rather unweildy.
That's 4 pounds. Or one dollar and forty cents worth of cans.
Let's assume that each person in the US lives within walking distance of an aluminum recycling plant, where they pay 35 cents at the door per pound.
How close would this plant have to be to make recycling the cans pay no less than minimum wage? A round trip, at minimum wage, of $1.40 is about 16minutes, or 8 minutes each way.
At reasonable walking speed, that's about 3/4th a mile.
Now, of course, they could crush the cans, and maybe carry twice as much, the weight is trivial. Sadly, crushing 400 cans, even if you can do one a second, would take six and half minutes, so you'd only slightly come out ahead. If it takes any longer than one second, you'll probably come out behind.
Now, you could obviously drive, and with gas prices at about 10 cents a mile in any reasonable car, means you could go 13 miles roundtrip...assuming you can do it instantly. But let's assume 60 mph, and a wasted minute getting in your car and dropping the stuff offand coming home, you could get three miles, spending three minutes, each way, and come out ahead.
Ah, but you could put more in your car. Well, let's just look at it this way:
You get paid, in scrap price, one cent per can. That is approx. 11 seconds at minimum wage. Gasoline is approx. 1 cents per tenth of a mile. If you average more time or more mileage per can, recycling cans is not efficient.
No, seriously, .35 cents a pound is a *horrible* price for metal you collect in half ounce intervals. Economically it makes no sense.P.
It does, however, make sense for the homeless, but that is only because they do not work for minimum wage.
However, it still does not make enough to pay for itself. In various places, the recycling has been propped up with government subsidies or even just the law. If it was cost efficient, aluminum manufacturers would have deposits on cans everywhere. They'd be trying their best to get new cans.
Here's a hint: If recycling involves the city picking up cans for free and turning them over for no money, than it is not cost efficient to recycle. Cities do not have to operate transport services for things that make money.
I don't worry too much. I figure if we run out of aluminum, we'll start mining landfills. Or we could just put taxes on using aluminum the first time.
As for recycling glass, worrying about it is one of the silliest things ever. We could direct the entire economy of the country to digging landfills and making glass solely to throw in there, and we could keep doing that for millennia. We will not run out of dirt to make into glass, and we will not run out of landfill space, despite what people seem to think.
And the best judge of what costs what are the people who have to pay it. Seriously. If it's energy efficient to recycle something, than it should cost less. (If it doesn't, we need to fix that.) If it costs less, companies should be leaping after it.
And, yes, the things we need to be caring about are the toxic things people throw away that can be recycled or referbished. Unlike entirely safe things to put in landfills, those cannot either be efficient to be recycle or ignored. We need to recycle those anyway.
But let's spend all our time and money recycling paper. I'm sure that's incredibly useful.
I call them 'death counters'.
Anyone can pick anyone else and say 'I kill myself to rid us of that person' and commit suicide. Only one person can do this to any specific person a day, to keep tempers down.
A tally is kept that only that person, and a dedicated government branch, has access to. (Although, of course, if people publically announce they're killing themselves for that reason, others will know.)
When the tally reached 100 people, they are killed. A man shows up with a gun and vial, and you drink the vial or you're shot.
The theory: If 100 people are willing to die to rid the world of you, (And with no assurance, at the start, that others will follow their lead.) you deserve to be removed from the world.
Instead of fixing it at 100, you might want to make it 'one millionth of the adult population' or something. Which I think is like 175 right now in the US.
It's also possible the number should be closer to 1000 than 100, I dunno. Probably want to start too high, and then lower it if it's not working.
See, he had discovered there was no sign of Iraq attempting to purchase Uranium, and that was an important part of the lies about WMDs. So they decided to discredit him, and decided they would commit treason to do so, by suggesting his wife, (who incidentally happened to be a CIA agent, but don't tell anyone), suggested him for the position.
This is despite the fact she didn't in fact do that, and the idea is absurd...no one wants to go to Niger, it wasn't a damn vacation. He had experience in Niger, he knew the government over there, and he didn't even get paid for the two weeks of research he did over there.
That is not what protecting your sources is about, helping the government destroy people by revealing classified information. (Which, incidentally, got some people working with the CIA killed.)
Miller should have, when she realized what was going on, revealed her lying and treasonous sources. Sadly, she has not, as she apparently has no integrity. So everyone in the current administration can feel free to give reporters classified information to suggest any bogus facts they want, apparently.
What's even funnier is that she didn't even write a damn article. She just spread this information to other reporters.
As for where I draw the line about revealing sources? I don't know, exactly, but I know Miller is way past it.
The press must not let itself be used like this if it wants to retain any priviledges at all, and members of the press who weren't in Bush's pocket wouldn't be acting like this. Leaking classified information is one thing when you're some clerk in the CIA who disagrees with the administration and think the American people should know something, it's another when you're the administration itself and using it, in lies, to discredit people who disagree with the administration.
Sadly, I'm worried that this could result in people being required to reveal who gave them any classified information. We had a very famous case about 30 years ago called 'The Pentagon Papers', when a classified report about how bad the Vietnam war was going, and it was half the reason we left it.
In actual fact, a lot of the recycled glass goes the same process as new glass.
In addition, talking saving a certain amount of energy is crazy when the energy required to get the glass isn't factored in. (This is a problem with most recycling.)
If recycling saved energy, companies would be paying for stuff to recycle. You can use this rule to figure out what is worthwhile to recycle:
Pop tabs.
Yup, that's about it. The tabs on soda cans are worth recycling.
And while 'up' and 'down' may be used to mean 'more' or 'less' points, I assert that 'moving vertically' is not automatically correct by analogy. It might make sense when you are actually looking at a graph over time, but as far as I know there's no graph of the moderation of slashdot posts, and it doesn't really make sense, because posts are not compared to each other, and only the current rating is revelant.
Otherwise, you just talk about the values 'changing' or 'moving'. Not moving vertically.
Checking google, it looks like Harris County owns the Astrodome. While they may have given permission to house people in it, they can put a damn legal radio station inside it if they so choose.
Talk about a strawman. No one said anyone shouldn't be able to express an opinion, just that it was shameful for them to do so. Exactly like you did, BTW.
And with public airwaves does come public responsibilities, that's why they have a damn license from the FCC. If they broadcast irresponsible stuff, they can be delicensed and shut down. Just like any other station in that area.
And I somewhat doubt FEMA has much to do with this. Maybe some local FEMA asshat, though, you never know.
This is solely because the locals in control want to remain in control.
There's only two:
For FM, you need a license. Which they have.
For CB, you need more expensive equipment to receive it.
I won't even touch the 'am' thing, where the only difference is that for a low-power AM station you don't need a licence, because, like I said, they have a license.